Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update gcc version to 7.4.1 #4846

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 11, 2019

Conversation

fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

@fabiocos fabiocos commented Apr 5, 2019

Update gcc version to 7.4.1 already running in the DEVEL_X IB without apparent problems

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 5, 2019

A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for branch IB/CMSSW_10_6_X/gcc700.

@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @gudrutis, @mrodozov can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 5, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 5, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34003/console

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 5, 2019

@smuzaffar is this test going to rebuild everything? Basically this is already done in the DEVEL_X IB, not sure we really need it...

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@fabiocos , for externals it is going to reuse all the pre-build packages but yes for cmssw it is going to rebuild every thing. I agree we do not need the test but does not hurt much

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 5, 2019

@smuzaffar ok let it run, this will provide anyway the comparison which is useful to see

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 5, 2019

BTW, pre-build with the new gcc? I guess not, while this is done in DEVEL_X...

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

yes, as architecture is same (slc7_amd64_gcc700) so what ever has been build by DEVEL IBs will be reused by normal IBs. Ideally no external package should be rebuild.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 5, 2019

-1

Tested at: ad57e6c

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4846/34003/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: RelVals

  • RelVals:

When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following workflows:
101.0 step1

runTheMatrix-results/101.0_SingleElectronE120EHCAL+SingleElectronE120EHCAL/step1_SingleElectronE120EHCAL+SingleElectronE120EHCAL.log

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 5, 2019

Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped)

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 6, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34029/console

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 6, 2019

please abort

not sure that the bot is in the correct state

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2019

Jenkins tests are aborted.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

bot is in correct state and I have restarted tests (for those which were using bad bot). I did not realized that you already have revert the change.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2019

+1
Tested at: ad57e6c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4846/34029/summary.html
Additional comment: Compilation Warnings: Yes

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4846/34029/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 2663 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3140495
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 12050
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3128248
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 197
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 31 files compared)
  • Checked 133 log files, 14 edm output root files, 32 DQM output files

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 7, 2019

@slava77 @perrotta @civanch all the DQM and comparison test failures are concentrated in a single workflow, 9.0, which is a simulation one. And indeed there are differences already a generator level.
I guess that the subsequent differences in the comparison are due to that

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Apr 8, 2019

I have performed the following test: rerun wf 9 starting from either step1 or step2 produced with the default CMSSW (gcc730). Rerunning the DQM comparison with the baseline in the former case I see

 - summary of 121564 tests:
 o Failiures: 1.43% (1736/121564)
 o Nulls: 0.00% (0/121564) 
 o Successes: 98.57% (119828/121564) 
 o Skipped: 0.00% (0/121564) 
 o Missing objects: 0

and in the latter

 - summary of 121564 tests:
 o Failiures: 0.00% (1/121564)
 o Nulls: 0.00% (0/121564) 
 o Successes: 100.00% (121563/121564) 
 o Skipped: 0.00% (0/121564) 
 o Missing objects: 0

So this confirms that the non reproducibility is located in the simulation part, and not only at GEN-SIM level.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

+externals

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2019

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next IB/CMSSW_10_6_X/gcc700 IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@smuzaffar I have put the discussion about this PR in agenda for next ORP, I would like to merge it after that

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit bc0678f into cms-sw:IB/CMSSW_10_6_X/gcc700 Apr 11, 2019
@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@smuzaffar we are not tracking minor version update in the architecture name (it was gcc700 already with gcc 731...), am I correct?

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

that is correct @fabiocos

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants